Search

Philanthropic efforts on behalf of basic research span a range of modalities, from assistance for individual investigators to the establishment of research institutes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In most countries, basic research is supported by research councils that select, after peer review, the individuals or teams that are to receive funding. Unfortunately, the number of grants these research councils can allocate is not infinite and, in most cases, a minority of the researchers receive the majority of the funds. However, evidence as to whether this is an optimal way of distributing available funds is mixed. The purpose of this study is to measure the relation between the amount of funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Québec over a 15-year period (1998-2012) and their scientific output and impact from 2000 to 2013. Our results show that in terms of both the quantity of papers produced and their scientific impact, the concentration of research funding in the hands of the so-called 'elite' of researchers generally produces diminishing marginal returns. Also, we find that the most funded researchers do not stand out in terms of output and scientific impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Government- and charity-funded medical research and private sector research and development (R&D) are widely held to be complements. The only attempts to measure this complementarity so far have used data from the United States of America and are inevitably increasingly out of date. This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK.Methods: The results for this study are obtained by fitting an econometric vector error correction model (VECM) to time series for biomedical and health R&D expenditure in the UK for ten disease areas (including 'other') for the government, charity and private sectors. The VECM model describes the relationship between public (i.e. government and charities combined) sector expenditure, private sector expenditure and global pharmaceutical sales as a combination of a long-term equilibrium and short-term movements.Results: There is a statistically significant complementary relationship between public biomedical and health research expenditure and private pharmaceutical R&D expenditure. A 1% increase in public sector expenditure is associated in the best-fit model with a 0.81% increase in private sector expenditure. Sensitivity analysis produces a similar and statistically significant result with a slightly smaller positive elasticity of 0.68. Overall, every additional £1 of public research expenditure is associated with an additional £0.83-£1.07 of private sector R&D spend in the UK; 44% of that additional private sector expenditure occurs within 1 year, with the remainder accumulating over decades. This spillover effect implies a real annual rate of return (in terms of economic impact) to public biomedical and health research in the UK of 15-18%. When combined with previous estimates of the health gain that results from public medical research in cancer and cardiovascular disease, the total rate of return would be around 24-28%.Conclusion: Overall, this suggests that government and charity funded research in the UK crowds in additional private sector R&D in the UK. The implied historical returns from UK government and charity funded investment in medical research in the UK compare favourably with the rates of return achieved on investments in the rest of the UK economy and are greatly in excess of the 3.5% real annual rate of return required by the UK government to public investments generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Better estimates of changes in the level and structure of national, regional, and global expenditures on health research and development (R&D) are needed as an important source of information for advancing countries' health research policies. However, such estimates are difficult to compile and comparison between countries needs careful calibration. We outline the steps that need to be taken to make reliable estimates of trends in countries' expenditures on health R&D, describe that an ideal approach would involve the use of international sets of deflators and exchange rates that are specific to health R&D activities, and explain which methods should be used given the current absence of such health R&D-specific deflators and exchange rates. Finally, we describe what should be the way forward in improving our ability to make reliable estimates of trends in countries' health R&D expenditures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The system research, development and innovation (RDI) existing in Romania is not able to ensure the promotion of industrial development, due to its vulnerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This paper seeks to develop our understanding of the somewhat diffuse nature of technological externalities and space by associating a geographical dimension with the sectoral dimension. Using a panel data set containing French patents as well as private and public research expenditures by industry and region over the period from 1992 to 2000, this paper estimates a knowledge production function. The region- and industry-specific nature of the sample data allows us to empirically examine spatial spillovers associated with public and private research expenditures in own- and other-industry sectors for our sample of 94 French regions. We find that the largest direct and indirect effects are associated with private R&D activity that spills across industry boundaries. However, since Jacobs externalities decrease more drastically with distance than MAR externalities, our results also point to different optimal strategies for regional versus national officials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses federal funding for science contained in U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed budget for 2016. Spending on research and development rises 5.5% to $146 billion, although that for basic research grows just 2.6%. It is noted the budget appears to prioritize applied research at such agencies as the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation.

The article discusses British science policy in the mid-1960s, with focus given to the themes of scientific research finance, the distribution of funds between different scientific fields, and the training of scientific researchers and technical support staff. The author notes the relatively small amount of public spending on science in Great Britain during this period and argues that this spending is largely wasted on the electronics industry and national defense. He distinguishes between funding for solid state physics, electronic physics, theoretical chemistry, and astronomy, and emphasizes the impact of scientific research on human life. Also discussed is the need for more technicians and improved status for engineers within intellectual circles.

The authors discuss the duplicate grants for same science research work provided by funding agencies to researchers. They note that some of these agencies permit submission of research funding applications with similar or identical goals, hypotheses, objectives, and aims. However, they think that researchers should not be authorized to get duplicate grants for the same work. They note studies suggesting that research community need to conduct in-depth investigation of the duplication's extent.

The article discusses the proposed process for allocating funds from the Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP) Research Fund of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The SORP Steering Group (SSG) should first review all project descriptions and funding applications. The projects and budgets recommended by the SSG will be submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee. The IWC will then review the final budget request, which will be presented in the Scientific Committee Report. The IWC Secretariat will take care of the development of funding agreements with projects approved by the IWC. The format for a SORP Research Proposal Request is detailed and the members of the SSG are listed.

The article reports on approval of a bill to reform higher education and research in Great Britain including creation of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI); focus on government research and development (R&D) spending; and need for strong leadership to protect science during Brexit negotiations.

The article focuses on the rate of invention and volume of new patents resulting from funded research as a metric for evaluating the success of research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) as of June 2014. Topics highlighted include evidence showing that federally funded research and development (R&D) is a productive use of taxpayer money and importance of forward citation count in determining the impact of patents.

The article discusses the move of the state of Texas to establish its own academy of science in an effort to acquire greater share of the declining federal research budget. The initiative was adopted by the example of Virginia to create more cross-collaboration, increase membership, and elevate science in the state. It also notes that Virginia became the second most populous state and has garnered $1.6 billion for university research and development (R&D).

The article discusses the development and funding of the graphene carbon material industry in Europe, with a focus on graphene research projects financed by the European Commission (EC) Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) competition beginning in 2013. Topics include investments by the EC in graphene research and development (R&D), the use of graphene carbon as a low-weight, conductive material in high-technology products, and patents related to technological innovations in the development as uses of graphene.

The article focuses on the concerns of scientists and European Union (EU) science officials regarding the budget jump for the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme proposed by the European Commission (EC) in November 2011. It states that EU officials argue that the 77.6 billion euros budget request was unrealistic. It says that critics of European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) argue that the money would be better spent on initiatives with a proven track record.

No abstract available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]